Part 1 – Trump Scandals Are Adding Up….

But even if you don’t consider the Trump Tower meeting to be absolute proof of collusion, it is certainly evidence of collusion. It was, after all, a meeting held for the express purpose of furthering cooperation — or, as it were, collusion — between the Trump campaign and Russia. And there is no reason to believe that the publicly available evidence of this meeting — which Trump and his family have lied about, repeatedly — contains the entire extent of the information about it. The report from Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee reports that, on June 6, 2016, Donald Trump Jr. made two phone calls with Emin Agalarov. In between those two calls — which, based on emails he exchanged around that time with Rob Goldstone, indicate Trump successfully arranged the meeting during the calls — Donald Jr. made another call. Phone records show the call, at 4:27 p.m., was to a blocked phone number. Corey Lewandowski told the House Intelligence Committee that Donald Trump had a blocked phone number. “Despite the [Democratic] Minority’s repeated efforts to obtain home or cell phone records for then-candidate Trump to determine whether the blocked call was Trump Jr.’s father,” Democrats report, “the Majority was unwilling to pursue the matter.” This has not attracted nearly enough attention. There is clear forensic evidence to show that Donald Trump, Jr. called somebody, quite likely his father, while he was rushing to set up the Trump Tower meeting. House Republicans blocked an effort to prove that Donald Trump was the person he called. Trump’s own rhetoric after the meeting provides more evidence he was briefed on the Russian offer to provide dirt on Clinton. Trump promised to deliver a “major speech” within a few days. Trump promised he would be “discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons. I think you’re going to find it very informative and very, very interesting.” The Republican narrative has embraced the fantastical interpretation first that there is no public evidence of collusion, and the even more delusional offshoot belief that Mueller therefore has no private evidence of collusion. The intent of saying this, of course, is to enable Republican efforts to obstruct or eventually end the probe, which they can justify on the grounds that there was no evidence of collusion anyway. And they are advertising in advance their intent to declare Trump innocent of wrongdoing regardless of how damning the final indictment may be.

1.       Obstruction of justice is a primary focus:

2.       The “collusion” investigation is alive and well: 

3.       Mueller is keeping it focused — and fair:

4.       Trump’s lawyers are right to be concerned about an interview:

First, it’s impossible to imagine Trump getting through an interview without contradicting himself or others’ whose testimony Mueller already has. 

Second, the questions, contrary to Trump’s assertions, suggest that collusion is very much on the table. 

Third, reporters, mimicking the White House spin, act as though Trump’s testimony is entirely optional. 

Fourth, Mueller clearly doesn’t buy the argument that the president cannot obstruct justice by exercising his constitutional authority (e.g. firing the FBI director).

Fifth, if Mueller is bound by the standing Justice Department memo that concludes a sitting president cannot be indicted, Trump’s status as a subject, not a target, makes sense. 

Sixth, there doesn’t seem to be a lot in Mueller’s questions that would go to financial crimes such as money-laundering. 

Former prosecutors and investigators say that the Mueller questions likely only skim the surface of what Mueller knows or wants to ask—and that given the length of the inquiry, the special counsel has a clear picture of what he thinks happened from other witnesses, and wants to see if those accounts mesh with what the president says. Therein lies the risk for both the president and his allies—if the president’s account contradicts those of other witnesses, he could strengthen an obstruction-of-justice case against him. And even if Mueller believes the president’s version of events, if other witnesses have said something different, then they could be subject to prosecution for misleading investigators. “When they finally get around to interviewing Trump if they do, they’ve already got all the evidence that they need, they’ve already gotten the pieces of the puzzle they need,” said Dave Gomez, a former FBI agent and a fellow at George Washington University’s Center for Cyber and Homeland Security. “They try to get the last pieces of the puzzle from the president, and then put the picture together. If the pieces from the president don’t fit the picture, that’s a problem.” The fact that Mueller sent Trump’s legal team the questions in the first place indicates a level of deference to the president not typically afforded the subjects of federal investigations. Prosecutors might give a defense lawyer some sense of the scope of an interview by outlining topics or events, but they rarely offer the actual questions in advance. Nor do Mueller’s queries indicate whether he might ask to follow-up on the president’s answers. “Those are very dangerous questions for the president, because he doesn’t know everything the Mueller team knows” said Clint Watts, a former FBI agent and a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. 

The current wave of bluster, I suspect, boils down to two realistic options — firing people or refusing to testify even when presented with a subpoena. If he fires Mueller or Rosenstein, it is fair to say that both Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) — who have assured the country Trump wouldn’t fire the investigators — will look like, to paraphrase White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, idiots. There will be extreme pressure to protect the investigative materials, and perhaps even to hire Mueller to continue the investigation under the auspices of either the judiciary or intelligence committees in the Senate. Democrats will demand impeachment hearings. We’ll have a Saturday Night Massacre followed by massive, peaceful protests, followed by a November Midterm Massacre, when the voters toss out everyone with an “R” next to his name. Trump might try this, but it would only highlight the president’s determination to obstruct justice. Ultimately, it would result in large Democratic gains and impeachment proceedings. The other possibility is that Trump refuses to agree to an interview with Mueller, and then challenges a subpoena. Once again, it is Republicans who will be in the hot seat. Instead of telling voters, “Those darn Democrats are thinking of impeachment,” Republicans will be forced to tell voters why they think this president is above the law, and what they are going to do about his refusal to cooperate.

The Supreme Court precedent is clear on whether Trump’s testimony can be compelled. Both in U.S. v. Nixon (telling Richard Nixon to turn over the tapes pursuant to a subpoena) and in the Paula Jones case (rejecting the argument that participation in a civil matter including a deposition “may impose an unacceptable burden on the President’s time and energy, and thereby impair the effective performance of his office”) the court held that the president is not beyond the reach of the normal discovery process in either criminal or civil matters. In Clinton v. Jones, the court found that “it is also settled that the President is subject to judicial process in appropriate circumstances. Although Thomas Jefferson apparently thought otherwise, Chief Justice Marshall, when presiding in the treason trial of Aaron Burr, ruled that a subpoena duces tecum could be directed to the President.”

As Right Turn has discussed from time to time, the story line that President Trump has the option whether to sit down with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III is simply wrong. Mueller has the option to ask the grand jury to issue a subpoena to compel Trump’s testimony under oath and without his lawyer present. (Witnesses can go outside to consult with a lawyer, but witnesses ordinarily do not get to bring their attorney into the grand jury room.) Perhaps now Trump, his lawyers and the TV talking heads will approach Trump’s testimony more realistically: It isn’t up to him to decide to cooperate — unless he wants to take the unprecedented step of thwarting an investigation into his own wrongdoing by invoking the Fifth Amendment.

 

If we get to the point where Trump’s testimony is compelled and he must consider invoking the Fifth Amendment, it is fair to say his presidency will be over. The appearance, fair or not, that he is concealing wrongdoing by taking the Fifth will be hard to shake. Furthermore, invoking the Fifth, which is his personal right, makes clear that he can no longer uphold his office, which is to “take care” that the laws are faithfully executed. A Democratic-led House (a strong likelihood) then would feel compelled to move toward impeachment. (Even Republicans might agree — or plead with Trump to resign.) But we are getting ahead of ourselves. For now, the proper framing is this: Trump can testify the easy way (not under oath, with his lawyer) or the hard way (alone in front of a grand jury). It’s nearly inconceivable that Mueller would relieve him of that dilemma. The prosecutor’s obligation is to find the truth, from all available sources. Mueller isn’t going to give Trump a pass.

A former contestant on “The Apprentice” who has accused President Donald Trump of unwanted groping and kissing is seeking footage from the reality TV show as part of her defamation lawsuit against him. Summer Zervos’ lawyer, Mariann Wang, said Wednesday she issued a subpoena for any “Apprentice” material that features Zervos or Trump talking about her or discussing other female contestants in a sexual or inappropriate way. Wang also subpoenaed records from the Beverly Hills Hotel, where Zervos says Trump made unwelcome advances in 2007. “We are gathering evidence that will prove that the defendant (Trump) lied when he falsely denigrated Ms. Zervos and denied sexually assaulting her,” Wang said.

NBC News just reported on what might be the craziest White House story you’ll read this week. It involves Trump’s colorful longtime personal doctor, Harold Bornstein, who claims that Trump’s bodyguard, a Trump Organization lawyer and a third man conducted a “raid” of his office in February 2017, seizing 35 years of Trump’s medical records. And on top of that, Bornstein now says Trump dictated his own initial doctor’s letter, according to CNN. The biggest question on the former is whether any laws were broken with the seizure, which Bornstein said left him feeling “raped, frightened and sad.” Bornstein said he wasn’t provided a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) release signed by the patient, Trump, which would be a violation. (An individual told NBC that there was a letter from Trump’s then-White House doctor, Ronny L. Jackson, but that it wouldn’t be sufficient.) The second-biggest takeaway here, though, is how heavy-handed all this was. That may speak to why we still don’t have a completely sober-minded review of Trump’s health.

 

We’ve long had reason to believe Trump didn’t treat his medical records and status with much thought or care — and perhaps that the doctors treating him had been infected with a kind of “Trumpitis,” picking up on the president’s own penchant for hyperbole. This suggests, though, that Trump has taken an acute and controlling interest in what his doctors say (and don’t say) about him — so much so that he may be willing to launch a little shock-and-awe operation that might have been illegal.

President Donald Trump’s New York doctor, Harold Bornstein, claims his office was raided by White House aide Keith Schiller, Trump Organization lawyer Alan Garten, and a third man in February 2017, according to NBC News. Two days after a New York Times story was published attributing the claim that Trump takes a “hair-growth drug” to Dr. Bornstein, the men entered his office unannounced and “took all the president’s medical records,” the doctor said. Bornstein said he felt “raped, frightened, and sad” when the men came into the office. They also asked him to take down a photo of Bornstein and Trump that was hanging on the wall, he said. Bornstein said he was not given a form signed by Trump authorizing the release of his medical records. Trump quickly cut ties with him after the New York Times story ran, he said. “I couldn’t believe anybody was making a big deal out of a drug to grow his hair that seemed to be so important,” he said. “And it certainly was not a breach of medical trust to tell somebody they take Propecia to grow their hair. What’s the matter with that?”